[CQ-Contest] Log checking errors

[Mark Beckwith]

Golly, Warren, I hate to break it to you but you're quite a number of years 
behind in your comments.  At this point, we can certainly say that these 
systems have been in place for a long time and have improved the game.  You 
should not be surprised by this.

Also, hate to break it to you, but when I say these systems have been in 
place, I mean at the ARRL.  See what happened when you left?  The whole 
place went to the dogs.  All the talk about CQ is just good news about the 
most recent benefits of ongoing cross-pollenization between the log 
checkers.

All good.  Yay for them.  I go to bed at night knowing my logs are in good 
hands.

With malice towards none and great homage towards Boring,

Mark, N5OT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Warren C. Stankiewicz" <nf1j at earthlink.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking errors


> Tree writes,
>
> "My final point is to reassure everyone that not ALL of the errors in the
> process will be fixed."
>
> "I hope that most of you can see the big picture and realize that these
> cases are just the price to be paid for having ALL of the logs checked 
> using
> the same process."
>
> To which I find I must simply reply, "Say What?"
>
> What ever happened to the concepts of:
>
> "If you can't do it right, don't do it at all?"
>
> -and-
>
> "Before you take away a QSO in a contest, you need to *PROVE* it's a bad
> QSO"?
>
> My history in checking logs goes back as nearly as far as Tree's does; and 
> I
> rememember how, when the topic of computer log checking was first raised,
> the fears of innaccuracies and people wrongly losing points was a great 
> and
> evil spectre that threatened the entire hobby.
>
> And great and incredibly painful steps, at least in Newington, were taken 
> to
> assure that this never happened--that errors were checked and rechecked to
> assure their accuracy. For it was felt that errors would invalidate the
> entire concept.
>
> Now, if I am to understand the above statements, not only do errors occur,
> and are errors going to continue to occur, but we should just "deal with
> it." And perhaps simply hold our peace.
>
> Well, I'm sorry, but not me. If the CQ Committee is using a program 
> paradigm
> which is inherently flawed, and inherently will always have flaws, then 
> this
> concept of "checking every single log" vs "checking the 'comptetitors' for
> fairness and accuracy', and verifying the veracity of their results" has
> gotten far too out of balance, and the organizers have far lost sight of
> their purpose, and raison d'etre.
>
> I don't buy this explanation of "well, it didn't affect the overall
> results."
>
> If you don't have the resources to check every single log correctly, and
> correct for errors, then don't do it. To penalize some incorrectly is to
> cast aspersions on the intergrity of the entire process in ways too foul 
> and
> ungentlemanly to describe in a forum such as this.
>
> I implore the CQ Contest Committee, and those to whom it answers, to 
> rethink
> this clearly ill-conceived and poory executed process to something more
> closely representing a clear rationality towards all operators.
>
> With malice towards none, but still, great outrage and umbrage,
>
> Warren C. Stankiewicz, NF1J/K6KFC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest